> I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to th

> I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century I posit that the distinction is arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between civil war pensions of 1862 vs the G.I. bill of 1944. If there was a change in government doctrine, I'd love to see concrete contrasts rather than hand-waving. Or perhaps Thiel's gripe is quantitative rather than qualitative?